tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 11, 2013 12:30pm-2:31pm EST
hill. the feeling and the republicans on the hill is the administration didn't walk a mile. it was years of pent-up spending and it came out. for me -- >> the administration comes in january 20 and they are already holding up many of our economic nominations as we come in. we've had the hearings but i am saying it was quite clear. >> that is completely counterfactual. >> u. were held up for reasons having to do with senator reid and what he did in the past with others.
these are completely counterfactual. speed mac. >> the fed used to have reserves and one of the changes is that now they can pay it and they look at the new tool of the interest rate. >> and number of people to put this in context a number of people have been arguing one of the problems in terms of funding investment in the private sector is that the fed is taking the money out of the system by paying interest on reserves. i think there is very little evidence that that is the case created the design of the policy was primarily to make sure that there was control over the rate to keep the fund rate is much narrower than they had been. remember that as a time when it was all over the place. it seemed to have worked quite effectively, and i think the evidence to that policy is pretty positive. the evidence against it in terms of its long-term effect is minimal. that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used to harm the private sector by taking the money out of the economy because
they have discretion on the rate by which it pays for those funds obviously by the race that would be too high you could do a lot of damage but i don't think there is any evidence of that. speed mac i want to thank the panel please join me in thanking them and for the good question. [applause] i want to note that we had an hour-long discussion and nobody blamed the media for anything. that's the first time that's happened to me on any panel ever. [applause] spee>> a look at the reflectionf the sculptor of the korean war memorial on veterans day near the lincoln memorial in
washington dc today november 11 and veterans day which originally commemorated the end of world war i. although the treaty of versailles officially ended the war in july of 1919 in fighting had actually ended seven months earlier at 11 a.m. on november 11, 1918. president wilson proclaimed armistice day a year later. it became veterans day in 1954 when president eisenhower expanded the observance to honor veterans of all of the orders. now this memorial to the korean war was dedicated on july 27, 1995 by president clinton. it marked the 42nd anniversary of the armistice of the korean war and if you look at the memorial from above you will see it is in the form of a triangle intersecting the circle. the walls to the left more than 164 feet long aid of about 100 tons of granite from california. and then there's also a part of the circle containing the pool of remembrance with inscriptions
that list the number of soldiers who were killed, wounded and missing in action. the u.s. lost more than 54,000 people in the korean war. more than 100,000 wounded and about 8,000 still missing. the inscriptions on the pool also list the un casualties. we will watch for just a moment as people visited the memorial earlier today. [background sounds]
this that deliberates for months and even years at end, it really does create uncertainty. and as we all know, uncertainty is the enemy of business. business needs certainty to be able to invest and if there is one thing that we needin the united states in terms of broadband and communications infrastructure, we need investment with dispatch as the chair man might say. turning out to the current national security topics with a discussion hosted by the american bar association earlier this month. a top national security experts from homeland security, law enforcement and the legal sector talked about modern-day threats like fiber to her resume and international organized crime.
an audible conversations good morning. i would like to call to order the 23rd annual review of the field of national security. i am the chair of the advisory committee for the standing committee and i deal with jim mcpherson who is the chair of the committee. i want to go over a few administrative. the first, c-span is in the room so when you ask your questions we would appreciate if you would identify who you are and speak in a short and question for the panel. i have a number of other announcements. the first is cle for continuing legal education. we would like you to fill out
the forms and give them in the back of the room. you also noted that we have these little yellow sheets that are on your table. they are reviews and we review them very carefully afterwards and that is why we think our programs have improved over the years because we listen to what you have to say and we try to give you the type of programs that you are interested in. we've also have another announcement. our committee would be having on friday, november 15 we will be having an address by ambassador mark who is the chairman of the group. he will be speaking about the diplomatic campaign in pakistan and at the university club at 8 a.m. november 15. so please take out your blackberry and iphone and put that in the system. we also have another speaker. we will be having on who is the advisor for the transnational threats projects on homeland
security counterterrorism program at the center for strategic and international studies that will be wednesday december 4. also at 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., that also will be held at the university club which is on 16th street and northwest. i also have a very special announcement. as many of you know, the aba standing committee is the oldest standing committee of the american bar association. we actually just celebrated our 50th anniversary in 2012. it was a committee that was started by then aba president lewis powell, who then went on to have more of an extraordinary career with the supreme court. but there was another major individual who was a force behind setting up our committee and that was a man named lloyd lieberman and he was the founding father of the committee and was a source in the national security law and in the
understanding of the rule of law and civil liberties. and we have created an award that is one of the most prestigious awards that our committee can get out. when i look around the room i can see that mr. friedman was a recipient of the award, but i have a great pleasure of announcing that for this year's award winner is john morgan moore -- john norton moore. [applause] john has had an amazing career. we get a lot of applications for the award but i'm holding up his cd which runs for 22 pages, small print. i will give you the table of contents, 47 books and why of book reviews that he's spent so much time he doesn't have time to read books because we only have five book reviews.
thirty-three newspaper articles and letters and 58 testimony statements including government testimony statements. and an unpublished paper which i assume soon may be published now that you are the award winner. he has had an extraordinary career of such dedication to the rule of law and national security. i thank you for what he will continue to for the rest of this panel and what you will continue to do for us as long as you still have a breath in you. thank you very much. i want to point out today that john is going to be doing his panel with an extraordinary distinguished group of people who i think have the tradition that we believe deeply in the committee which is we stand ta
tall. we will be having cybersecurity challenges and a keynote address by the partner and talking about the national security law and the efficacy practicing the national security law with al harvey and the honorable james baker from the court of appeals in the armed forces and for those of you that have to stay for your ethics that would be coming up at 2:50 to four. with that it is a distinct pleasure for me to pass the podium on over to john who will be running a panel that we will be looking forward to rather extensively. thank you again, john.
>> thank you so much for the honor of receiving the award. on the presidential medal of freedom and have the next ordinary things for this country and for the rule of law and in the world. and so it is a very special pleasure for me to have an award named after this great american. it is that of the nexus between the transnational crime and terrorism and other issues in national security. this is an issue that i think has not really understood there has not been the kind of focus on this as there has been in many other areas of national
security law in recent years and gets the magnitude of this problem is one that has been growing and is today a very serious issue. the director of national intelligence testified to the congress of the united states last year that the nexus between crime and terror was in fact one of five key threats to the united states national security today. now there are many, many different parts of the nexus and i will leave it to our panel to really discuss that for you in depth. but part of it of course is the ability of groups that are using organized crime to raise money for the terrorist activities and other national security threats
to the insurgency. in addition to that, there is going to be a sharing of logistics. there's going to be a learning of tactics for one group to another we have seen particularly the nexus of this in terms of locations and areas, for example, of collapsed government and failed government or areas such as venezuela which have regimes that are in fact very difficult for the united states and foreign policy so there are many different relations here that unfortunately seem to be getting more serious by the day. i have a panel that i think is certainly one of the best panels one could possibly put together to talk about.
the first panelist is spike bowman who's who is a specialin the national security policy and most recently he served as the deputy of the national counterintelligence executive. he served before that as the senior research fellow at the national defense university and prior to that was in the senior executive service federal bureau of investigation as the senior counsel for national security law and as director of the intelligence issue group of the national security branch. please join me in welcoming spike bowman. [applause] >> thank you, john. when we think of organized crime, i think that most of us think about the east coast of the united states but look at the crime families and things
like that and we tend not to really look at it as a national security issue so after all it is organized crime do? it takes money from people and from organizations and institutions it corrupts police and officials and government officials and engages in arms trafficking and so forth. the problem we are simply looking at it as a criminal enterprise as we can have effective organized crime. if we don't have corruption somewhere along the line. in addition to that, if you have any place in the world which is unstable, you have a breeding ground for organized crime. and if you think about it, there are -- depending how you count there are 194 countries in the world. it is a great majority of which are weak or failing states,
which gives a lot of opportunity for breeding ground for organized crime. and instability in any region is a threat to all of us. instability also allows organized crime to four flourish and organized crime doesn't want the rule of law to be well protected were established in these areas. after all, the rule of law is an enemy of organized crime. so, this is -- excuse me -- this is one of the problems we face. now, we started looking at organized crime as a national security issue rather tenuously quite some time ago. every one in this room is familiar with executive order 12333 that was written in 1981. and when that order came out, one of the things that the order established as a national security threat was
international drug and international terrorism investigations. not precisely organized crime but with our international drug organizations engaged in? international organized crime. as we move forward in time we begin to look at it in a little more specifically as a national security issue. the presidential decision directive 42 in 1995 clearly declared international crime and threats to national security and in the same year in 1995, the national security strategy recognized the organized crime as a national security issue. in 2002, the national security strategy again recognized it as a national security issue. the same in national security strategy in 2006 and then in 2009, the national estimate of recognized it. by 2010, the national security
council was heavily invested in transnational organized crime. so, this is basically something that has been growing up and evolving as something that we need to look at as a national security threat serious about this is -- if we think of the traditional methods of organized crime, we can begin to see that this is something that really does affect us on a transnational issue. for one thing, trying to combat any transnational threat is difficult because you start thinking about how you manage the transnational threats and for us it is rule of law. the rule of law requires ports and prosecution and requires witnesses and evidence. it requires choice of law when you're talking about threats that spread across different borders. so, that's a major issue but one other thing that has come up in a very short period of time and by that i mean about 20 years is
the influx of cyber issues into organized crime. i don't want to take up the next panels discussions on cybersecurity, but think about this for a minute. since about the mid- 1980s to about around 2000 we begin to occupy or live our lives in cyberspace. probably there maybe a few of you out there that doesn't have a facebook account, but basically we begin to live our lives in cyberspace and this is one of the things that organized crime is beginning to take this significant advantage of. because it is easier, safer, cheaper to steal money
electronically than it is to rob a bank or to set up a traditional fraud scheme the organized crime has invested very heavily in the cyber criminal activity, and one of the consequences of that is we have seen an increasing number of organized crime groups form around the influx of cyber issues in our lives. if you think about it for a minute, you think about all the things that you do in cyberspace that the criminals can take advantage of. you buy things on the internet. all of us buy things on the internet. you put your credit cards out there and those of you probably everybody in this room has bought something from amazon. you go back to amazon and buy something new and they say do you want to use the same credit card as last time?
you select the one you want to use because they keep track of it and when these organizations get hacked, you tend to lose things. i use the example of my daughter at one point. i have a 25 -year-old daughter who doesn't like to carry cash around. and she uses a credit card or atm card for everything. a couple of years ago on christmas she went to visit some friends of mine in honolulu, and as she took off from the san francisco airport and was airborne out of san francisco, i got a call from her credit card company saying that asking if she had just torched something on her atm in illinois. and as i said she doesn't carry cash so she arrived in honolulu with no money and no atm card. that is just a small idea of what can happen.
but one of the things organized crime is really beginning to take advantage of is the theft of information. it can be your information. we all know that identity theft is a big deal today. it can be information from the government, who we all know the countries have been after military and political secrets forever. but think about this: we have an incredible number of proprietary secrets in the country and if you can steal proprietary information -- if you don't have to do research you can make an awful lot of money that way. we have about 3.5% of the world's population. we spent a 25% of the world's research and development dollars. so we are the biggest target in the world for proprietary information. and we are beginning -- we are losing billions of dollars each year for proprietary theft.
so cyber criminals have done actively into this area and businesses are only just beginning to try to cope with this. only a few years ago when we would go to businesses and say you're going to be hacked, here's what you need to do. they would say i have to spend money to do that and my obligation is to give my dividends to the shareholders or it would have to go to the board of directors and ask permission to spend money for something that doesn't come to the bottom line. we are seeing that change a little bit today. when the olympics were held in china a couple of years ago, we asked businessmen not to take their blackberries with them because we didn't want them to take a blackberry and come back and plug it into their systems. we were successful with some but not all. we did get bill gates not to take his computer with him which
i thought was a big coup. however, when that -- linda took hers. we need to look at what is the actual threat of organized crime today, and i think it has evolved in a very short period of time to something that is more than just violence and racketeering, but something that becomes very personal to all of us. and with that i think i will stop here and let the next panelist speak. >> thank you very much. [applause] our next panelist is tomas fuentes, president of fuentes international, a consultative firm based in washington. he previously served as the assistant director of the federal bureau of investigation's office of international operations.
from 2004 until his retirement in november of 2008. his 29 year career in the fbi included in 11 years as a member of the u.s. government senior executive service. he directed the office of international operation which includincluded offices at fbi headquarters in washington dc and 76 legal offices in the u.s. embassies and consulates worldwide. he also served as a member of the executive committee of interval from 2006 through 2009. mr. fuentes. >> thank you, john. i would like amplify what spike has talked about on organized crime and the organization of the effort to combat it both domestically and working throughout the world with other organizations to try to stop it. much has been made over the years that organized crime and
terrorist groups were going to form a partnership that would be devastating to the united states come i the developed countries d developing countries. what we have seen over the years is that it is not exactly worked out that way for several reasons. in the areas where they do cooperate a great deal, organized crime has expertise and explosives creating false travel documents, accessing the global financial network, committing violent, white-collar crimes, all of those type of things to go against the government regulations and the laws that exist in various countries. terrorist groups do the same thing. where they differ is that of the leaders of organized crime do not trust jihad at all and the reason for that is they are in business to make money. they will use violence and the threat of violence to depend on public corruption from police and judges, from legislators
created a require reply here or corruption to exist and flourish. but they are in the business to make money and if you are in the business of using violence or committing crimes to sustain a political motive, religious motive, other reasons than greed, they don't trust you. you don't think the way they think, they don't want to hear about it. in terms of what spike mentioned on cyber this part is true. i took over the fbi organized crime program in 1997 and ran it for five years until 2002, so i was running it during the transition of what occurred after 9/11 in terms of government programs. ..
>> you had basically a wall go up, and during that era, this was the fear of not allowing the gestapo to be created in the united states. not allowing a japanese-style secret police. so the difference was that it created the cia, among the other community agencies at the time, and directed that they would not work closely with the fbi, to prevent the to from forming a partnership and becoming all powerful type gestapo. in other words, if i'm running
organized crime i can say, this gangster, we declared him a threat to national security and to every kind of metadata collection, other secret intelligence work that cannot be discovered later and help us in our criminal case. so that was the barrier that went up. after 9/11 much was made about the culture of the agency. they don't like each other. they don't share information. that was nonsense. the public officials were not aware what they're talking about. spike and i formed a partnership in the late '90s, and after these directives had gone out and become law and become a presidential directives, nobody addressed a fundamental legal fact of our system. and that is called the fourth amendment. when you're going to prosecute someone for a criminal case in the united states, the defendant is entitled to know how you investigate. what was the predication of the investigation. why did you open it?
what techniques did you use? if you used title three electronic surveillance and wiretapping but what was the basis of it? reveal the affidavit. motions are filed under discover trivial all of these facts and only a very limited, miniscule amount of information, basically the identity of a confidential informant that might've been used in an affidavit can be withheld. but otherwise the defendant is pretty much entitled to everything to the agency is pretty much required to open its books to the defense attorneys to allow the defendant to see that. these directives including later the patriot act did not in my opinion should not and will never address the fact that a defendant in our system has that right. when we started to try to develop the system to work together, law enforcement and the intel community, we were trying to find out how exhaust was this going to work. iran and investigation of the
top 10 fbi fugitive. at the time we're working together, many aspects of it with the intelligence community. and spike and i attended probably 50-100 meetings at nsa headquarters, at langley, at fbi headquarters are all of the attorneys and all of the leadership of the criminal programs and intel programs got together and were try to figure out under what circumstances could we worked together. how could we share information? how could we gain assistance from intel community without asking him and forming a secret alliance that was not required? later the fbi and guided him and his organization, dismantled them. at the time he was trying to perpetrate $150 million fraud on nasdaq. we prevented that. we did a great deal of good in that case and everything was going just wonderfully, until
and it wasn't even the defense attorneys, it was doj attorneys are going to prosecute and oversee the prosecution, who show up at langley and say, hi, cia, open your books, we want to see what help he gave the fbi. sources of methods. well, they're welcome was soon worn out. when they did that, and rightfully so. so you have two competing interest in our system. the rights of a defendant to know what the government did to him or her and why and how and when. and on the other hand, the need for our intelligence agencies to protect the very sources of methods that they need to ensure our national security. it was not result completely in the late '90s. it was not resolve by the patriot act. and i do think fundamentally that part will ever completely be resolved. it's a very difficult issue and fortunately for us terrorist organizations and organized crime organization throughout the world have not formed the
leeches that we thought they might. thankfully. and in terms of cybercrime, some of the groups perpetrating cybercrime, they haven't come to leaders, the gangsters are old-fashioned to their autocratic. some cases just plain stupid when it comes to the potential use of the global financial network, stock markets, other means other than violence. so that's the interesting thing about them. as long as they're stuck in the world of trying to resort to the knuckle dragging, racketeering methods that are tried and true for the last 75 years in organized crime, that's a benefit for us. as we used to say, as i used to say in the late '90s, when john gotti and kevin mitnick get together, look out. so in other words, a leading gangster or organized crime group, if they team up with level aa hackers and then use their ability to penetrate
computer networks, database systems as spike mentioned, when they are able to do that and then commit extortion against the amazons and against the banks and against the security companies, we will really see the jeopardy to our system and to our government, and to the economic engine that drives not just the u.s. but other companies. if i could add one more difference that's important with jihad. the jihadi groups in many cases, they want to overthrow the government, replace it with sharia law or whatever system they believe in, a funnel system that they want to install. organized crime doesn't want to do that. that gangsters in this country want passionate they are not patriotic. they want the u.s. to survive and stay will because it's a cash cow. if the cow dies, no more milk. so they really want to just suck off and bleed off money from our system and from other companies. where that hurts overseas, particularly we've seen in
eastern european countries after ththe fall of the soviet union. we see it in africa, asia, other parts of the world. there are many countries that do not have the ability to absorb that kind of loss, financially, or the degree of penetration of corruption within their system. it does jeopardize their entire government system. we don't see that ability here. it took the fbi a long time. i will admit to get off its bureaucratic rear end, and then starting in the late '60s, '70s, '80s really go after local semester while preventing russian speaking -- luckless orozco. asian crimes, other groups, forgetting the same foothold here that the coast announced was able to do all those years. and so we were proud and fbi to be able to have such a role in dismantling and weakening my
cosa nostra and prevented the other groups from having that takeover and it really did enable in 2001 the redeployment of many resources to the counterterrorism program. i think i will leave it at that. >> tom, thank you very much. [applause] >> we now will common to a somewhat narrower geographic purpose. we are going to look at the experience of new york city. the largest city in the united states. how is this nexus between transnational crime and security issues affecting new york city. i'm delighted, we're able to have with us douglas maynard who was appointed to the newark city police department's deputy commissioner for legal matters in january 2013. he is a former law partner, was co-head of new york litigation
section as of course deputy commissioner, he also served before the as associate general counsel, and before that as an assistant united states attorney for the southern district of new york. much of his crime-fighting background comes from that row as assistant u.s. attorney. attorney. they period from 1990-1996, he prosecuted and investigate a wide range of federal crimes, including we go violations, narcotics trafficking, bank fraud and mail and wire fraud. he investigated and prosecuted a number of major russian organized crime cases. then at that time of course major international crime problem. those cases involve murder, extortion, drug trafficking and other crimes in the u.s., europe and asia. he coordinate with european law enforcement officials to extradite defense in italy,
romania, austria and denmark. as you can see, nothing stays limited in a particular geographic area. it is truly transnational crime and the interface with security problems. mr. maynard. >> thank you. new york city may be geographically small but thank you all no it's inherently international city to its bones and of all these international problems are our problem as well. let me suggest that the overlap of the nexus between organized crime and terrorist groups is not limited to two separate groups coming together but also terrorist groups and others like them using the methods and means of organized crime including flat out old-fashioned criminal conduct. let me suggest that that phenomenon presents a useful tool to law enforcement in an effort to disrupt and dismantle some of the terror groups. at the nypd we are ideally situated to take advantage of that opportunity and i think we
are seen as a legend or law enforcement agency of those traditional thai. but in addition since september 11 under mayor bloomberg and commissioner kelly, the police department has developed really an extraordinary intelligence capability. and that you can work and do work hand-in-hand together. more so over recent years as i said we have made an effort to take advantage of our ability to investigate traditional criminal activity. we expend enormous efforts to do our best to prevent any future terrorist attacks on our city, and a big part of that is gathering intelligence but also prosecuting where we can come including when the crimes are not specifically terror crimes but other criminal conduct. i thought one way to talk about this was to give a recent example and talk about a case which we indicted this year called the people versus ramadan.
it's a state case. he was indicted in may of this year. basel ramadan is living within and with 15 other 15 others indh them. it's an enterprise corruption case which is sort of the state of new york state version of rico and involves massive money laundering charges. the case grew out of an investigation. it was semi-mundane. it was involving stolen goods, baby formula upstate new york. it turned into over a year-long investigation involving hsi, near state organized task force, nypd and others. using traditional, nothing esoteric using traditional law-enforcement methods of undercover surveillance, court authorized wiretaps. it was in the and sort of a massive cigarette smuggling enterprise bringing untaxed cigarettes from virginia to your. done at a very, very large-scale.
we think it netted over $55 million in illegal proceeds. during the take down one point forming dollars in cash was taken out of ramadan's resident. another seizure of $200,000 of cash was made in new york city. the interesting thing in recent though irrelevant to this discussion, some are original suspects in the case had ties or connections to a man convicted of murdering a student in 1994. he was in a school bus crossing the brooklyn bridge and he was shot and killed. at the time i don't think people understood the significance of the event. it was in 1994. it was only in the aftermath of the terrorist type attacks the people understood who he was and was beginning to cook at that time. other original suspects in the ramadan case had ties to the blind sheikh. one of the most significant terrorists to inhabit new york city. people close to the shakeout
invested in the day before the business. there were some connections to top hamas officials. we all know that similar schemes are used to generate sometimes mass amounts of funds that can be used to support terrorist operations. in fact, in connection with the taken in this case the hsi reminded people of that am reminded that proceeds from these kinds can be used, it's not just for criminal conduct but also kind of conduct that can affect threatened national security. so it's very difficult to know where the money went. others have referred to the obvious fact is very much more difficult to investigate events overseas, particularly if they're in unstable countries. you have a hard time finding where things go. one of the things we concluded and what we think about when the time is right is sometimes you act before you perfect information we have an opportunity disrupt the group to get you concerns on the terror front and take it. so we indicted that case and i think the potential violent nature of this group was
revealed last month in october. the leader of this group, one of the other defendants were indicted on conspiracy to commit murder charges. while in riker's island are plotting to kill several people that they thought were witnesses in the money laundering case against them. so they been indicted on those new charges. so did i think this is an interesting example of the opportunity that can be prevented by the criminal conduct, again, sort traditional criminal conduct that is often used by people who either are or have ties to, may be related to terrorist operations. that's it. >> douglas, thank you very much. [applause] >> our final panelist is luz estella nagle who is a professor of law at stetson university college of law in st. petersburg, florida.
she specializes in international law, international criminal law and national security law. prior to assuming or teaching responsibility she was a judge in colombia. when she came to the united states she served, i'm delighted to say, as one from university of virginia, as a law clerk to the supreme court of virginia. she has an extraordinary background, including working as an undercover agent, and in addition to that she is currently an external researcher in the strategic studies institute of the united states army war college. she's participate in rule of law judicial reform and hemispheric security projects sponsored by the u.s. departments of defense, justice, state, and usaid throughout latin america. i am aware of some of her background as a judge in colombia, in which i can tell
you she is a person of enormous courage in standing up for the rule of law in very difficult circumstances. luz nagle. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction. my role is to try to give you some information as to how the organized crime in the americas is a threat to the united states national security. it's going to be very difficult because i have only 10 minutes. so i will, i'm going to generalize, and it's not because every country or every organized enterprise works and behaves the same way. it's just because i have to do it to be able to tell you what's going on in the region. and one of the things that i want to the size as i mentioned
some of the aspects that are going on in the americas is yes, organized crime is about money. and we are living in times of economic crisis. and the fact that we're having economic crisis needs to be something important for us as we hear what i'm going to kill you. why? because what's going on in the region has encouraged us to invest money in helping the countries that are suffering the most amount of violence due to organized crime presents. also, because a lot of the enterprise that the organized crime has today is competing with our corporations. so let me just give you a
traipse to the americas. organized crime in the americas is a threat to democracy, the economic and public stability of the region, the integrity of the institutions, an increase of violence. and all of these has a direct secure applications for the united states. brazil, colombia, mexico, panama, venezuela and others are among the 50 nations worldwide that spent the most amount of money on combating violence. that's according to today's 2013 global peace index. the region as the single largest number of internal displaced people in the world. in 2012, with a total of
5.8 million, it had increased by 3% from the prior year. colombia remains the country with the highest number of idps in the world to this day. with a total of between 4.9-5.000000. this year alone, an estimated 230,000 people fled their homes. and that is not just because of internal armed conflict. it's because a lot of what's happening today with internal arms conflict is triggered by the presence of the back brains, which are already cataloged as organized crime by the united states. about 160,000 displaced people in mexico since 2007, and that
is because of the drug violence. organized crime is very sophisticated firepower. latin america is awash in illegal weapons. and i'm just going to give you an example of the type of weapons that you can find in latin america. brazilian gangs have ar-15 style last three weapons, 5.56 millimeters. in colombia, they were found 5.56-millimeter assault rifles. machine guns that's used by nato special forces. the guns end up in colombia, yes, most of them were "fast and furious." but what's so interesting is how they ended up in medellin.
seamy submersibles travel to mexico with cocaine and they came back with weapons and money. they growing and diverse activity of organized crime takes advantage of weak and fragile institutions. and that makes corruption that has to organized crime to penetrate the state institutions, and benefits from the u.s. strategic position the region has. organized crime has a very diverse portfolio. today, i'm just going to give you some of the diversification. it's not just drug trafficking. money laundering, human trafficking and smuggling is huge. weapons trafficking, document forgery, the pirated goods, illegal mining, illegal logging,
illegal ranging. drug trafficking is flexible and is in constant evolution. and one of the things that seems to tell us that it's evolving is because internet estates, the consumption of cocaine, seems to have diminished. but on the other hand, it has increased in europe and in africa. in the united states we estimate that 90% of the illicit drugs that are entering the united states border passes through central america and mexico. half of them come through central america. drug transportation in honduras is connected to human trafficking. present as have been knowing to kidnap migrants for ransom or demand that the victims carry the drugs into the united states and the threats.
there are new trafficking routes and criminal networks that have emerged. the trafficking routes now ran through brazil, going to europe and africa. the suez canal is used to access the mediterranean and baltic -- senate. ecuador is another. and most of these rely on maritime transportation. shipping containers are used to transport illegal drugs. and here we go with cyberattacks. to move drugs today, organized crime is hacking shipping containers. it may sound like science fiction. this year the police in the netherlands seized one ton of cocaine, a ton of heroin in a suitcase with 1.3 million euros
after uncovering a massive drug smuggling operation that used hackers to break into the system for shipping companies. according to the prosecutors, the hackers obtained access at two container terminals by using spear phishing and malware attacks directed at port authority workers at shipping copies. before changing the location and the delivery times of the containers that have the drugs in them. pretty smart of them. other methods to transfer drugs come and we know these, are the tunnels, and yesterday we found a tunnel in san diego area. the mexican cartel uses the tunnels to smuggle drugs. also, cocaine in frozen sharks. we know it's submersible. so moving on to another type of enterprise that the organized
crime has, hierarchy and counterfeit goods. larger than the national gdp is up 150 economies, according to the oecd. they give high profitability because they are more risk and they are relatively light penalties for this. just in 2005, up to $200 billion of international trade could have been in pirated or counterfeit products. there is a study in brazil that shows the connection between pirated goods and organized crime. nine out of 10 activities in mexico -- dvds and mexico are poverty. pharmaceuticals in colombia has 1000% profit margin. and is more profitable now since
illegal drugs. let's move to illegal ranching and illegal logging. this is known as the narco ranching. it's about four environment at that legitimate become. and guatemala, the gangs are laundering money through ranching. they are cleaning fast areas and destroying the environment. they are selling cattle on the mexican side for profit. and, of course, they are competing with the legal companies. chinese guns are also involved in illegal logging, and the wood is sent to asia. illegal logging is going on in colombia and in brazil, and it's also connected with organized crime. we move onto illegal money. organized crime in colombia is
asserting control over illegal mining operations in the country, including the unlicensed extraction of gold and other metals. expanding to mining is very profitable for organized crime. with the price of gold from $270, to 1800 else, that's a lot of money. gold is also used to launder money from other illegal activities like drug trafficking. so those are just a trip through some of the diversification of the portfolio. we also have found links between organized crime and organized crime from other regions. and i'm just going to mention a few. they been present in mexico, colombia, and seems to also be present in argentina. doing what? human trafficking.
russia mafia is found not in mexico, colombia, argentina in central america. also human trafficking. chinese gangs are supplying drug cartels in mexico with chemicals for methamphetamine. the nigerian criminal gangs control 30% of cocaine leaving south hall today -- southpaw today. there's a lot to be concerned about and i think that we need to cause and think, can we compete with organized crime? ..
and one of the appendices of this document basically with a variety of terrorist organizations around the world and their links to criminal financing. some of these organizations, it's very clear are simply being funded by the orangutans and others and it may be purely state sponsorship. but many of them on the list, going page after page are in fact, finding themselves in substantial part, at least, with
criminal activities. and so my first question for the panel is, what can be done in dealing with the problem of terrorism, going after the funding and trying to cut off the criminal funding part of support for terrorism. as many of you know, the treasury department has had an outstanding program, one of the most effective things we do against terrorism that goes after the money, terrorist organizations. so the question is, what can we do that we are not doing and perhaps may be more effective for additional efforts to try to go after the criminal funding operations of terrorist groups. and let me just open it up to any member of the pml that would like to respond to that. >> i'll take a shot out of it. one i was talking about earlier is to see it as an opportunity if the conduct itself is
criminal, it can be an opportunity to distract the pattern by prosecuting people. you can see his money of course as well as, you know, criminally charged participants. it probably requires greater cooperation between agencies, which i gather a sort of the holy grail of effective law enforcement. but every time it's not as bad at the top of the trade, but is in fact always an issue. but i do think their opportunities at the local level sometimes to investigate and prosecute people for that conduct. the decide whether you can improve anything directly related to terrorism. it makes it that much more important to prosecute. >> tom. >> yeah, if i could add to that, it is not a new terrorist on trade thing to add garden-variety, to sustain themselves or funding to
operate. i was in high school in the 60s, that can remember the days of the symbionese liberation army conducting bank robberies in armored car robberies to sustain their terrorist -- objectives. back in the mid-90s, the fbi had enormous case based in the charlotte, north carolina division, involving the smuggling of cigarettes by hezbollah to obtain funding, to basically create this international just smuggling of contraband on taxed cigarettes to raise money and send back to the middle east. so again, that goes back to thing of them not only to kill the cash cow. now for decades, until the terrorist act in the hemisphere goes back prior to 9/11, goes back to 1991, 1992. the two bombings in buenos aires, argentina by has a. but they never conducted any such operation in the u.s.
because they didn't want to draw the attention of law enforcement. it finally came through the cigarette smuggling case and a few other criminal cases. i was circuit organized crime in chicago at the time as a young agent and we had food stamp fraud, things like that conducted by middle east organizations in sending the money back to support hezbollah or hamas or other groups. so routine criminal activity, even on the large-scale, chart trafficking, armored car robbery, traffic schemes have been used for decades by terrorist organizations to fund raise. that's not the same as having a direct partnership with la cosa nostra or russian organized crime are the south american cartels. back in those days, the medellin cartels and other groups, the mexican cartels we see these days that are operating and undermining mexican and u.s. interests. these are the important
distinctions to keep in mind that the criminal act that is a great source of money from john dillinger on that too hottest and that will continue. >> if i may, i think that we need to fund a law of corruption with organized crime. we cannot just look at one another like the other one. we need to also look at the enablers a little bit more carefully. we need to click and accountants, bankers, lawyers. going after the money organized crime ties alone is not going to fix the problem. if they are flourishing, it's because there's a correction and i think it is really important that we end up with corruption. >> thank you very much. okay, let's go to a second
question. that is given the way in which this nexus crosses to communities, the law-enforcement community and the national security community, are we effectively organized to deal with these problems and the special issues of this nexus and how, if at all, should we be changing these things nationally or internationally to be dealing with these issues. any thoughts from the panelists? >> we should not go to knee-jerk reactions. i give an example. back in the days of my partnership with mr. phone and hear of trying to bridge that gap between intel and law enforcement work together. during that time we had an organization at cia headquarters called the organized crime operations group. 85 people, mostly analysts, case officers and the cia had about
at any given time 15 to 20 fbi agents analysis on trade analysts. zero was very successful. we with regard to human trafficking internationally actually did two renditions of that program for major international human others working together. 9/11 happens two months after 9/11 no longer exists. it is gone because we have to address counterterrorism. so everybody do this because this is the top priority of the government. then wait a minute, what about this? everything goes here. we need to keep as a policymaker level in this requires advocacy at the law enforcement and intel community level to maintain a balanced approach to this. that's mentioned is exactly true. organized crime has to be everything from the bank robberies in cigarette smuggling to the public corruption that requires it to a variety of
other criminal activity. but we need to maintain a balance. this idea that policymakers that we can take the resources that of one program and stick it here are there. i can come up with a hundred examples of opportunities lost because we thought criminal programs don't matter. routine white-collar crime, food stamp fraud, who needs to investigate that? routine bank fraud, who needs that to? many of the things that became too miniscule to get the attention of federal law enforcement proved later to be critical to the fundraising activity of terrorist organizations or the fundamental fundraising for international organized crime groups. so that would be my word of it lies to policymakers and the hope that they would listen and really take a look when you sacrifice one program for the sake of another, really take a
look at why was that program created and what program comes from the? >> thank you. >> just as welcome on this very strong practical advantages to integrating the intelligence analyst with the law enforcement with the agents themselves. this is how they operate in separate spheres. but if you want to actually get practical and be able to take law enforcement steps and make sure that you are focused on the right people, the integration of those two offers can be extraordinarily powerful. at the police department over the years, particularly since september 11, we developed a very seen before, very robust intelligence after and a lot of in-house analysts, very bright, young people who focus on intelligence analysis and integration of them with streetwise type x is a very potent combination.
things like that, and it sounds like what tom is suggesting is said about this operation was prior to september 11. the strong combination and people should look at that. >> yeah, i think it's difficult to over emphasize how important it is what tom just said. we had an organization that was working pretty well. and you know, one of the things we did was re-created for terrorism, as i said, national counterterrorism center is much bigger, much more robust than ever before. the point of the matter if you put these resources together, they tend to work. we are to have direction from every president going back for years now, to work together on organized crime. we don't have direction to put ourselves together the way we did at one point. we need to reestablish that for organized crime.
>> thank you. lives luz. >> i couldn't emphasize more how important it is to look at the resources the fbi needs. and also to try to encourage corporation among so many agencies that could be coming together to try to help them determine what's going on with organized crime. we need to try to use techniques that are going to be preventive. we need to prevent instead of always reacting when it is too late. >> tom, let me pursue also affected the international part of that. you were associated with interpol. could you tell us a little bit about how effective the international level of cooperation is and what needs perhaps to be done there to enhance this? >> there's a number of
multinational organizations and probably interpol is the largest and most relied upon by other countries. now, here in the u.s., the fbi has the largest legal attaché program around the world in 76 offices overseas, which covers basically all of these but iran and north korea for the most part. the other federal agencies and a couple of others, legacy customs do also have attaches. but the rest of the world can't afford it. some 50 countries have their police attaches here in washington after u.s. embassies here. but that may cover all of north america, not just the fbi or dea or certain federal agencies. but overseas they rely on it. interpol has over 91 countries. what are basically as is a 27 communication network to pass information about those
countries and ensure cooperation and assistance or marshal resources should they need it. interpol is not contrary to some of the middle east may have seen, does not have investigators they run out and investigate crimes. but what they do is through the communication network, get countries, one or more in a major situation to spend those resources to another country that may be a need. a wide variety of law enforcement or national interest such as tsunami get additional countries to send resources to asian countries that were victimized to help identify the dems. or in some cases create task forces to assist and address mollie pirates, which is affecting congress and the indian ocean bordering countries. whether issues where they get countries to provide networking capabilities to other countries. now prior to -- ron noble in his last year as general secretary,
he's former in the u.s. at the time deputy secretary of treasury when atf was under him. but he established the 20 for seven internet communication network. prior to 2000, interpol countries in order to talk to each other by computer had to piggyback on the international air travel reservation system, saber. it was like a travel agency. you would pay by the minute to be connected to savor. the company like sudan, for example, because i know in the sample they would log into that system for about 15 minutes a week and turn it on. meter is running a very download the the messages to them, upload the answers to last week messages and turn it off. by creating di 247 and nepal they provide the countries and if you had access and encryption
key, you could access their system. they do not have classified information so you're not giving away the keys to the kingdom if someone was to enact it. it allows them to be on there much longer. they may not have a 20 for seven months for smith. it may only be a nine to five monday through friday but it's better than 15 minutes a week. the most recent example if you heard about the girl that was rescued. she was banking on the street. she was rescued about three weeks ago. dna testing to prove that the two adults posing that as her parents are not biologically or parents. they did dna testing can have no clue as to your identity because she had been abducted as an answer. huge, worldwide organized crime networks engaged in human trafficking and it's from and things to use as black-market babies for adoption to convince being used by other organized crime groups to go up on the
street because they look cute and can get money from tourists. all the way up through what you've seen in movies also, sex trafficking organizations, other businesses that use illegal aliens coming into the country. in this case they put the interpol messages out. all the details go out. that girl has been identified. the country where she was abducted from has identified. they now know all of that information. they do not know the identity specifically have her parents yet. but the investigation is ongoing with the other countries and it shows probably her mother sold her. when she was pregnant, could not afford her, soldier with an organized crime group have been trafficked her to greece. in the u.s. here, interpol is administered under the command of the deputy attorney general. there are officers here in washington and the national
central bureau have about 120 full-time employees from 22 different agencies because we in the u.s. do not have a single national police agency contrary to what some fbi agent bank. but the ncb washington as part of that network is closely with it. for other countries, we rely on our bilateral and multilateral relationships abound the world. other countries do not have the ability to have attaches. interpol is their lifeblood communication system to every other country in the world as part of the interpol 190 member network. >> thanks, tom. luz, any other thoughts here? >> , and if you have heard of the search agreement? okay, one person. this agreement covers under which conditions the united states can exit data and under which conditions the e.u. will provide the data to the united
states. that is intended to decide terrorism and organized crime. fortunately in light of the reports run by nsa, the e.u. decided to suspend the agreement. so i think that is pretty concerning, especially in light of the fact that organized crime wonders and keeps a lot of money in several european banks. so that was just my thought. >> okay, yes. >> the n.y.p.d. is lucky not to have resources most local departments.do. as a talk about the international nature of these problems, it is essential part of the problem. in light of september 11 and the threat of terror to the city, i think it's worth noting the police department has 11 detect
it stationed overseas who work closely with local law enforcement in the 11 countries in order to understand the conditions in those countries because they enable direct impact new york city because of the diverse nature of our population. that international part is a key part of our affairs. >> two last questions for the panel before opening it up to the audience. one of those is if we look now to subs and in the national team, what may be done nationally that would enable us to more effectively deal up to that is a substantive problem. the change in the law or policy that would enable us to more effectively deal with this mix this? -- next this? >> anyone like to take that on? >> i think the legal tools and the laws that are available
should always be looked at. we talk about the rule of love and the ability to combat these things. frankly what tom is saying about the sometimes crisis action that takes place, new york state has a serious problem in the terror statute they passed acting september 13, 2011 is kind of a mess. it is way, way to restrict it. in next extraordinarily difficult to prosecute in new york state and a lot of good statutes available in a federal system. that's just a minor point. i guess the larger point is it is important to examine the laws that are on the books and see what can be improved to help combat the problem. >> i cannot another point of fact and that is an ongoing situation of, for my opinion, stupidity on the part of my government and that is sequestration. much was made about the the government shutdowns and the potential about not paying our
bills and all of that and the crisis has been averted for 90 days. the crisis isn't completely averted because i can give you an example. since last year, the fbi has a hiring freeze. it has $750 million cut from its budget and through attrition is downsizing by 3000 positions. not a word about that publicly. we don't hear a word about the other federal agencies, and telamon enforcement that are affected right now i sequestration and by the inability of our policymakers can all blame congress and the white house and everybody included to allow sequestration to continue without a thoughtful process. there was a thoughtful process that would in the budgets of these agencies. i've been involved for budgeting for years and the strategic plans and thousands of pages of justification when you submit your budget, what the problems are, why you need the money, how to use the money. all that is out the window when we arbitrarily take agencies and
cut them. that is occurring right now. so again, what is the agency sacrifice? is a sacrifice a major counterterrorism cases? the camps, cigarette smuggling, narcotics trafficking? gas. that needs to be brought back to an end. >> tom commentating that very much. a very fundamental point to be made to us. i'm a shift to the last question that is simply the counterpart to the last question. internationally, what if anything needs to be done sensitively, internationally. i guess as part of that, has this issue ever been taken to the security council at the united nations as one of the possibilities? if we took it to the security council, what is the level of cooperation that might be improved? are there new treaty is needed, et cetera? any thoughts on that? >> one of the biggest problems you have nationally is the fact that money-laundering is not illegal in many countries and there's a lot of countries that
virtually sell their sovereignty to allow money-laundering to occur. so that is one issue that i don't know how it can be solved because it is an issue of sovereignty. the united nations charter, article ii subparagraph for as we have to respect that. but there other things that could be done. global asset forfeiture is something we could work on. we have had some experiments and tom can address it better than not, but for example in hungry we've had fbi agents working with the hungarian national police to shut down organized crime in hungry, which is remarkably successful. so they are a number of things that we could do on an international scale that we do here in the united states, might actually be friendly collet exchanging hostages in different nations these. but we could work more closely and then we could also have
throughout the institute, a better way of international investigations, not just communications of interpol, bagheera poll, for example, has gone a long ways towards international investigations within the european community. >> other comments? tom? >> when working with leading to sequestration. among the discussions occurring at fbi headquarters in the over the last six months has been the tremendous expense of having the fbi and 76 offices overseas, including agents assigned at euro poll, interpol headquarters in lyon, fbi headquarters in new york and a number of agencies. among the discussions is either too effeminate or cut by 50% the fbi's international offices. again, another act of absolute stupidity. i would like to go on the hill and argue anybody raises that
issue and tell them how that is and why we need these relationships, why we need these representations and how everyday it affects u.s. and helps u.s. national security. an example of that is a particular u.s. senator ivo named bandit once in a foreign country, was greeted by the fbi agent barry and his remark was, well, i guess the sun never sets on the fbi. the other agent was very polite and everything, but he could've easily replied you know the sun never sets on u.s. interests either, pal. [applause] >> thank you very much. any other thoughts or will open up to the floor. >> i can't top that. >> i have to say this, we have a lot of agreements and initiatives, especially things i had to talk about the americas,
with the americas. i'm very concerned as to have the money being used to help his being misused. and whether money is going. a lot of money has been lost and more concerning to me is to see that a lot of people that we have trained to combat organized crime, they themselves have become the supporters, the promoters of organized crime. and then we end up extraditing them and trying them here in the united states because they knew the how and who to communicate. i'm very concerned and i think we're wasting a lot of money and we need to pay attention to how the money is invested. >> thank you very much. the floor is now open for questions. if you would please state your
name in question. it would take to address it to a particular member, please do that. yes, sir, right here. >> this is for other panelists prevented this great gold with that the transportation security administration. over the past several years, a number of u.s. jurisdictions have is ambushed fusion centers, which are intended in part at least to put law enforcement and intelligence analysts together. could you comment on the effectiveness of this approach so far and give us some idea what kind of institutions nationally and internationally could be built on that foundation going forward? >> well, the fbi has two types of fusion centers and the dhs has yet another one.
and they have basically different functions. the fbi has the joint terrorism task verses before 9/11 i believe there were 34 in existence. today there are 103. they have been a tremendous success story. building on that, the fbi has built field intelligence groups, which are more analytically oriented than our dj tts, which are operationally oriented. the best of my understanding and i've been away for a while, they have been equally successful. the homeland security fusion centers basically have a different focus and i'm probably going to do teach us a, but what they basically do is they work more with the politicians, and the mayors governors, to help
them understand what the problems are in their area so they can take actions on their own. could that be done on an international gail? the problem that you have is basically the problem the piece from 1648, which says that everybody is sovereign and it's incorporated -- the article ii of paragraph 4 the united nations charter, territorial independence of every country sacrosanct. if you carry -- if tom is an fbi agent were to go to great written, he couldn't take his gun with him because that would be an act of sovereignty there. that's the sort of thing you have to get past. it wasn't until margaret thatcher was the prime minister and president reagan was the president that they allow the secret service to be armed when the president went there. so that is the sort of problem you are looking at. could it be overcome?
at canada country a country wants to sacrifice his sovereignty is basically hungary did at one point. there other sort of instances of that. the italians and the spanish have an agreement that they can each search each other ships on the high seas without asking permission. some of some of this can be done, but it's quite difficult if you want to preserve the idea of sovereignty as it is incorporated in the united nations charter. >> if i could add, having been in charge of trying to set a fusion centers at the state and local level by special agent in charge of indiana, one of the difficulties and, you know, for doug in new york city, there's no trouble comes in a new york city police that there might be a terrorist threat here. they might attack here, really. but if you're in other parts of the country, the police there in the governors and mayors will say, you know, we're worried about mexican drug trafficking organizations and drug spotted her junior high schools or
ensure a high schools. we don't think there's going to be a major terrorist attack from italy's base terrorist attack agency. why should we in their view waste police officers on a fusion center to address federal or national security issues in the future and are in turn is that going to address what we really care about at the state and local level. so that is part of the difference with local fusion centers, that the local jurisdictions out in the rest of the country just may not think it's a wise use of their resources to the devout investigators and analysts to the national programs or fusion center programs if it is not going to also address their local issues, too. >> okay, next question. start over here. >> thank you. steve tashiro attridge appear from your beard but just a
question i started yesterday and directed to mr. fuentes. pursuing routine criminal investigations and criminal act to the date, is not only an important task in its own right, but may lead to greater discovery with respect to crime and terrorism. the question to you is do you think that the fbi is morphing into an intelligence agency focused on ct and issues related to it has in fact encouraged -- encourage taking the eye off the ball? >> to an extent, yes. someone has. it should be noted that even after 9/11, 50% of the fbi agents are working criminal cases. so the increase in counterterrorism and national security related investigations has increased as a percentage, but not completely. terminal investigations are still ongoing, but the
thresholds to work many of the perceived white-collar crimes are not. in terms of initiatives or new programs, when you're on the hill train to justify something, again as much of the focus is going to be counterterrorism as opposed to other benefits that come. i give you a quick anecdote. i opened the fbi office in beijing, china in 2002. at the time i was lobbying for that opening and we work in organized crime together with the chinese, intellectual property was beginning to be worked. human trafficking was work together. when i lobbied for that office, the questions i would get from the was there's no counterterrorism there. is no g hockey organization. there's no south american drug cartel. there's no threat from organized crime in china that we worry about from the middle east. i said we still need those for a variety of other u.s. interests. two years later after we open in
2004, a human trafficker at the mexican border walks and two fbi office and says i have just trafficked for chinese terrorists across the u.s. border. this is a couple months before the democratic convention in boston. they are under way to boston to commit a terrorist attack. wow. this gets disseminated. law enforcement cannot be on the lookout. everybody stay on the bridges of the airports and train stations, lockdown boston because before terrorists enter out that we know of. we said that microsoft is in beijing. the ministry of public security dispatches about 30 police officers from beijing to falluja province for the four people were from. we did have their identities because the trafficker has the documents. 48 hours later, china's government comes back to us and says they are not terrorists. they are just your typical peasant's traffic snake heads to the west and these were people
coming out of the race patties and not province wouldn't know confucius from bin laden. you are not under threat. so within 48 hours coming threat to massachusetts, to boston and the convention is completely eliminated. the thousands of man-hours that would've been have been wasted had not been too given us information, they would still be standing on the bridges. maybe you could have prevented the marathon bombing by looking for terrorists. but that was a tremendous savings. in my view, the fbi agents and some other analyst in beijing paid for itself in saving to u.s. taxpayers because they been able to resolve an issue of terrorist when there was no intent or knowledge that office to be a key player in the war on terror. >> next question. >> yes, sir, here.
>> john duncan, florida a&m university college of law. we talk about the chinese and japanese russian mafia here in the u.s. beard how about a u.s. teams possibly overseas click that link not only cooperation with other gangs, but also the national security impacts back on us. because i say, you know, a lot of the new millionaires will be in china and russia and that's where the money is going. >> anybody like to take on not one? >> well, yes. organized crime today is transnational. it goes both ways. and yeah, we do have our own gangs, the biker gangs and also, i may add that ms-13 -- all are
gangs. and yes, we have that thread also to other countries. it comes and goes. as you run now, they just got essential america, through mexico, human trafficking, trafficking in drugs. in the circle goes back and forth. to the point that they sometimes get caught because they're going to be deported and that allows them to have a retreat.com in go home. we have that problem. >> okay, other thoughts on that? if not, let's open it up to a question. lady right over here. >> i am tennis player but
hogan's law firm. my remark as for commissioner maynard. i'd like your opinion, not that of the department as to whether stop in first will be sustained. and if it is, what action may we take? >> well, i'm not sure it's appropriate to give my personal opinion. i'm also not so sure we can begin the question to be candid. there is a major ruling yesterday. i cannot predict what mayor deblasio will do if he wins and takes office if he does win. i personally, to give you my personal opinion, have hope that upon, if he wins the election, upon realizing that he is responsible for the management of the city, that he will realize that it in everybody's interests, including his own, to be able to manage the police
department on a sound without the interference of federal judge. i don't offset addresses your questions. people use that anything with very different understandings of what they're referring to. i think we all know it is a standard, traditional law enforcement practice. it's done in new york city like every other police department in the country. we've done it constitutionally. >> another question. i think there was a lady here. >> hello, catherine from the treasury department. first of all, thank you for courage and dedication. it's much appreciated. the comment is really a disagreement on the only covers terrorism, not organized crime. the locally, not for treasury, but for other people in the same day the european parliament voted to suspend the recommendation, they also passed
a piece of legislation recognizing asset freezing into organized crime networks. that's very good for organized crime, not so good for treasury in the area of terrorist. i did actually have a question about corruption. corruption is a really big issue. as was mentioned, treasurer has a robust transnational crime. asset blocking program. but you know, you can only do so much solely for the united states. you want to transnational partners about people in countries. the problem is of course to do work with? you can offer technical assistance, but who do offer that to? the recipient of that assistance. i would greatly appreciate any of your thoughts on how to tackle corruption and its practical cases are lessons learned you guys have had. thank you.
>> if i could comment, what a great question or couple questions. i think first before i get into the answer, it would be to recognize the difference between the united states in almost every country in the world. that is in our country you are not immune from prosecution if you're a public official while holding office. and the rest of the world, that's not the case. you look at some of the wealthiest countries in the world, including developing countries with oil and gas and other mineral resources on the ground. if you're a public official, you cannot be invested. you have immunity from investigation and prosecution while in office. so what they do is take the money they get through corruption, send it overseas to a safe haven and a soon as they leave office, to join their money and spend it in the safe haven or somewhere else in the world. the countries victimized by their in office by bad governments. and when they're out of office
by the fact that money is gone from our country, at least the poster was good enough to spend the money in the u.s. that they made. in terms of your question about dealing with the officials in the country, the problem is they may be the only officials. so now, you are trying to deal with an administration in some of the mall countries are developing countries, even larger countries, where you have no choice. as long as that country a thousand people in office to have that immunity, you really are going to have a difficult time ever get and what of corruption. if you don't get rid of corruption ornish are listed or reduced to come you're not going to get rid of organized crime. the reason this is so important is if you look at the united states, the corruption cases. the fbi has primary jurisdiction for corrupt public officials. if you look at it here, if the republicans are in power, the
republicans are in a position of power to hand out, do other things. some people within the republican party will take advantage in steel and the fbi will investigate and put them in prison. and the democrats are in power, they have the ability to have a lot of influence, to control committees, to do other things that help steer contracts. so really, it's both ways. what i'm saying is that corruption is an equal thing and also, by the way, public corruption and greed is not those chinese are greedy, those guys over here in nigeria. it's a human nature phenomenon. we have as much corruption or would have as much in this country as any other in the world or any other culture in the world. it's just that this country does more to take it on than anybody else in the world. so it's an important factor. you almost have to deal with who you have to deal with overseas. that the problem.
>> okay, another question. yes, sir. >> of drugs were legalized in past -- >> state your name, please. >> by name is michael dobler from los angeles. if drugs are legalized and taxed water damage or transcribed by taking away revenue and allow in-line fours to go after other crimes such as human smuggling intellectual property of clicks >> well, certainly it would change the situation there. there's been a mixed message sent for places where drugs have been legalized. in canada, there is medical marijuana that's permitted and the canadians say that organized crime is taken at vantage of the fact that there is medical marijuana per minute and they are setting up grow facilities and things like that.
and the in the netherlands, there's been a substantial loosening of the drug issues they are. but the interesting thing is that it is broad and a lot more illegal drugs in the netherlands since they tied legalized marijuana to the point is starting this year, the netherlands prohibits any foreigner from going into their pop shops. the czechs have legalized a significant amount of drugs recently. what it has done is allowed the police and the official resources that the czech republic to sort of focus their efforts elsewhere. but it doesn't have much on donahue much at all. in poland, i believe, they actually have a fairly success story of legalizing drugs and getting better they are. so i think it's really going to
depend on the society that you're looking at. you know, if you have a society as large as united states and you legalize drugs, you know, you're going to change the way the money flows. but it's not going to get rid of organized crime. coaches be operating in a different way. >> other thoughts, luz? >> that will do zero. just because of what spike said, but also just look at how diversified portfolio of organized crime is today. i mean, they don't need to rely on drugs, illegal drugs alone. and yet, if they were going to be legalized, look at it from an industry. a lot of the drugs are legal, but they are counterfeit, organized crime is making a lot of money out of it. so i think that legalization,
per se, is not the solution to organized crime. at the corruption, we need to tackle corruption. >> one more comment. i think that the problem has dirty been created that organized crime, particularly in latin american countries has been able to make lance of dollars trafficking marijuana and other contraband, other drugs and other contraband materials. i don't know really how successful we would be. and i would agree with luz about the success that might or might not have been from the marijuana. the example i would use as an alcohol is legal in the united states, you did not have la cosa nostra involves many great way. they did gambling, prostitution. they're normal, knuckle dragging, but they were not large-scale threat that they became. when prohibition goes into effect, it is a bonanza. they make billions.
it creates the al capone's and the lucky luciana and the rest of the cosa nostra getting involved in the importation or production of the illegal alcohol and the speakeasies and network to distribute and consume it. when prohibition is eliminated too late to eliminate the cosa nostra, they have now become a powerful, national organization. they have not dominated the four largest labor unions in the u.s. and the industries affected by this union. they have now corrected public officials and police and regulators and all the way through washington. so, the elimination of prohibition didn't eliminate the mafia growth that had been allowed and created, able to flourish was then entrenched. and now they could move to other things. other aspects to make money. and it was too late to take them out then.
it's taken 75 years of coordinated effort in and attacked to reduce them now. and we have been successful in reducing them. the example i would give is if you watch godfather one, it is a very accurate depiction of a cosa nostra's powerful control in the u.s. in the 40s, 50s and 60s. as a result of the rico statute from the wiretapping authority sustained attack, but from godfather one to the sopranos, arguing over banquette locks in newark new jersey. that reduction of their power and influence of 26 national families down to a handful was significant. but it took 75 years to do it. and really the elimination of prohibition didn't weaken them. it was the continuing attack later that day. >> robert f. turner. [inaudible] >> i bought turner from the university of virginia.
i want to follow up on your comments on the hollywood often portrays them as great patriot during time of crisis we rally to help the country. recently, i heard a story about how helpful they were right after at 911 attacks and a wonderful and you might want to address that. >> i don't know the particulars, but i do know they were involved in corruption and taking the remains of people to places with it couldn't be found are sorted. so you know, really grotesque criminality and corruption of the grossest level. >> is trying to organized program at the time. we had new york state police and new york city police and the fbi and our organized crime task forces, which go back decades preceding 9/11. many task forces, organized crime terrorism, violent crime are in place for many, many
years. the day after 9/11, we have our btrieve patriotic la cosa nostra members in new york saying, i'll leave out the others, those feds took us out of waste hauling, construction, the laborers union, which was involved in major construction sites. they did all of this damage to us over the last 20 years. but now, the reconstruction and the knee-jerk reaction 9/11, we are back in business. we're going to send people to washington. we're going to go after the no-bid contracts. we are going to go after the waste hauling up the debris. one of the things that happened after the immediate response to ground zero was then, to be just putting the material, the wrong material into dump trucks, taking across the river to new jersey to landfills, where teams
of police and fbi agents literally, like prospectors were sifting through the debris. i want to your type of materials that came out of that human another. but immediately, these guys were talking on the wiretaps, we're going to send that to landfills. we're going to get our hands on money and jewelry. they didn't want the body parts, but the other material that would benefit them financially. there is a huge argument after 9/11. while the debris? was really the financial victim at ground zero? so that caused us to put gps on the tracks and monitor every single track to make sure it didn't deviate by 10 feet from the route to the designated landfills where was supposed to go. so that is your american la cosa nostra thinking, all of these years, we got put out of business. but now, this is fantastic. we are going to make money
again. >> okay, i'm going to have to last question, a double barrel question as to two possibilities for sensitive intervention. that is, first, we saw and played in the ku klux klan out of business or large data business that civil litigation played a very major role. should we in some ways, or have we done it effectively, unleashed civil litigation against organized crime. the second question is one sees and looking up resources that criminality and money raising that kidnapping and payments or grandsons is a significant part of it. should we be seeking to criminalize and what is the comparison in relation to what was done on terrorism. anybody like to address any part of that double barrel question? >> i'll take a shot at the civil
litigation. if you can create a financial incentive to get plenty of civil litigants. that's always the way. i suspect the challenge is whether anyone thinks they can collect for acclaim. i'm sure there's a lot of claims that they are good people do sue terrorist organizations. the federal government obviously has strong civil forfeiture actions and that can be set up to you. the challenge is always finding and getting your hands on the assets. >> i could add to that, professor blakey at notre dame would be very proud. he wasn't proud in 1970 because nobody used it. he went around and said look at this tool. an example of several provisions are powerful. and actually enable the success of many other prosecutions. for example, i mentioned that the cosa nostra controlled the four largest labor unions in the u.s. teamsters, laborers, longshoremen and hotel workers. under the symbol visions, when
those gangsters were convicted, civil suits were filed by the department of justice, removing them from ever being allowed to be a member of a labor organization again. so they can have a show jobs are in reality become union stewards or for some of these other union organizers that they used to maintain the control of the gangsters. so the civil part of rico was enormous when it was used throughout this. here's the 80s, 90s and sends, to remove them permanently from ever participating in the labor organization. they couldn't go back to to what they knew best, labor racketeering. >> i'm a little bit with criminalizing the ransom because they may find a lot of people are families trying to just recuperate the loved ones.
i have problems with that. i think we would be criminalizing the wrong individuals. >> thank you very much. i like to think this panel. [applause] >> thank you, john ford is always a wonderful, wonderful panel. want to take this opportunity to thank the cosponsors of our annual review. we have, from the center at georgetown lot, particularly the team, team trainer, laura donohue and derosa will be running the next panel and chairing an cybersecurity in the future. i particularly want to thank the senate a lot ethics and national security, duke university school of law and charlie, who ran the panel yesterday, who did a wonderful job on the authorization to the use of
military force. lastly, the center for national security law, which is not only john norton moore, but a special person you right now has his eye behind the camera and that is bob turner. these three schools have been extraordinary in their support and development in the area of national security law. so we'll take 15 minute -- i want to thank them officially for what they do. i want to thank the panelists were being quite fascinating and would like to remain a hostage for you, but we have to move on. we'll reconvene in 15 minutes and we'll have our panel and set security at the future. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]